Renegade

We expect people to control their primary drives and be responsible for the outcomes. Living organism have a sexual drive, however we do not excuse sexual molestation or rape simply because those drives are innate. The same should be true for the urge to procreate. If people want to procreate they need to do it in the context of being responsible for its impact to others, namely their kids. If they can't afford to bring up thier kids, they should control their primary drive to have them. Modern technology has made it possible so that no one needs to have kids if they so choose. If at one time having kids was an economic benefit for the parents, (such as having workers for a farm) such a case cannot be made today. For the most part they are an economic burden. When they cease to be a burden, such as when they reach adulthood, it generally has been an economic beneift to themselves rather than their parents. Much of what was requred for labour can be automated, or offloaded to more densely populated areas. Beyond a certain point, a population's size does not increase its wealth. Look at some of the most densely populated areas on the planet and ask yourself it they are the wealthiest.

There are very few rich men. Your assumption is that somehow being a man entitles you to richness. This is patently false. Rich men are despised just as much as rich women. You seem to have a bitter view of career women. I know plenty of well-off career women who have accumulated their wealth from "honest paid work", a scenerio you find unlikely. the formula is quite simple, talent and drive, and a willingness not to let family life overcome career. I really don't know what you mean by "general acceptance". As far as I know, "gold digging", and various forms of prostitution are looked down by most people, both men and women. No, it is not the explicit desire of women to bag some part of a rich man's fortune which is the problem. The problem is the set of laws which is unfairly skewed toward women which makes this possible or even likely. It is not a problem if both parties enter into a contract which they both get what they want. The woman gets access to wealth, and the man gets access to the woman. It is a problem if parties don't have the same understanding of the contract. or if the state changes the rules of the contract, or equally bad, if the state doesn't let the parties get into contracts which they would willingly undertake. The fact that such an attitude exist should make men extremely cautious about entering into any kind of marital or co-habitating relationship with another. IMV, under today's laws, only an ignorant man, a trusting man, or a crazy man would get married or co-habitate.

Did they not understand that it cost to bring up a child? If they did not have pretty good certainty that they coudl provide for the child, why did they have children? Huh? What does that mean? h? What does that mean? It is their own choice to be parents they could ill afford to be which has led to their loss of dignity in accepting handouts. IMV if parents expect society to subsidize the cost of raising children, then society should also have a say in who should become parents. It's the old threat: "Better subsidize my childcare or else I'll screw you even more by making you pay welfare". We should tell these irresponsible parents to screw off. Don't have kids they can't afford and if they do, then perhaps they need to be taken away from irresponsible parents and placed with responsible parents who can afford to take care of them.

Have you changed your mind since? Of all sorts??? Really?? Statements like this would seem to imply that you support women gold-digging. Do you? Of course. When the law is so skewed towards women, their limits is indeed boundless despite any "fairness". No they probably shouldn't, but what happens if they don't have the support and have babies anyway? Certainly in this case the man did not offer the support obligations of marriage and she still proceeded to have children with him. No doubt it was still a lucrative endevour even without a marriage commitment.

Yes, but what this does is allow families to pool the basic exemption, something individuals are not allowed to take advantage of. You complain that you are taxed as an indiviual, and largely that is true, however you neglect that there are some cases where families benefit where individuals cannot. How Flaherty defines what is "fair" is irrlevant. Each person has their own definition of "fairness" including you, who has a definition of fairness which says it is ok to discrimminate based upon family status. I look to the tax code to be unbiased and consistent. Something I agree that it lacks.

Mostly but not completely true. Family income is somewhat factored in the spousal amounts, and equivalent-to-spouse amount, and there may be otehrs. Here we go yet again! It would be great if the government stated every objective somewhere and only allowed tax policy that met those objectives. Sadly they don't. There are deductions to favour seniors, Nothern Residents, students, overseas workers, shareholders, etc. I haven't found a document anywhere which specificly outlines the objectives of tax policy, so you are not alone in this stuation in trying to understand what the purpose of a specifc tax rule is.

You're right, I probably wouldn't. In the end what you are saying is not that you want tax reform to get an unbiased tax system, but rather you want a BIASED system and you want to change the bias to situations, you believe should be favoured. Not concidentially they happen to favour your personal circumstances. Even if I supported tax reform, (and I do) why would I want to support a tax reform which simply changed biases rather than eliminate them? Since you acknowledge that there are reasons why the tax system is discrimminatory, than perhaps you can also acknowledge that there may be reasons why the taxation is different between families with different distributions of income (for example to encourage both spouses to be in the workforce).

It is really hard to know if they share the same additional expenses or not. Does earning $20K imply that one spouse works at a low pay job, or does it mean that the spouse works part time and thus the family may avoid additional childcare costs. In general, our system of taxation is not based upon how much disposable income a family has. Maybe it should. BTW, why should a family earning $100K split 50/50 between two spouses, pay the same taxes than two individuals earning 50K each since those two individuals incur higher costs because each individual has to maintain his own household? I am in agreement that there there should be significant tax reform. I disagree that it should be skewed toward giving two-parent families tax advantages. Any tax-scheme, short of a no-deduction flat-tax scheme, will always find some situations where some families or individuals when compared to others they consider in a "similar" situation, will consider themselves tax-disadvantaged.

That you benefit LESS doesn't change the fact that you still benefit substantially. My guess is that you've been advocating for such a change for at least 8 years, so the only real difference between then an now is that you didn't happen to get the change passed that you advocated for. You are very selective in your comparison points when you compare to a family with a 50/50 income split. Would a family with 50/50 income split have zero daycare costs? Would a family with 50/50 income split not faced increased costs of having two people in the labour force? What you are looking for is for the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize those couples who have a single-high income and choose to have a stay at home spouse. If you want to have the same tax burden as the family with a 50/50 split of income between spouses, then arrange to have your wife work and earn as much as you. If you do not do so, it is because there are other advantages to having a stay-at-home spouse which you value more than the tax break. You repeatedly come back to this point, and I have repeatedly told you that I agree with you that the treatment of income for both benefit calculation and taxation should be uniform. How many times must we agree on the same point

Of course you would Pat because presumably it is in your self-interest to do so. The point is that you have a very narrow view of what constitutes families in "similar situations". That view is biased toward supporting a change in tax law which would benefit your personal situation. You lose creditibility for your position when you say in one breath that all households making the same income should be treated the same, and in a second breath have a narrow definition of the circumstances under which households should be treatd the same. The only criteria you wish to use in a test for similar circumstances is the presence of a second spouse. It would just add a whole new level of unwarrented discrimmination based upon family situation. Why stop there? Why not introduce a set of tax rates based upon age? We could have one set of brackets for those under 20, those 20-30, those 30-40, etc. Why even stop there? Let's introduce one set of tax-rates for men, and another for women? IMV, the tax code should minimize discrimminatory treatment. If we want to switch from taxing on an individual basis to taxing on a family basis, I see some argument for that. But all credibility is lost when you then start discrimminating between family types.

What "civilized countries" encourage is not the basis of determinng what is "fair". Most "civilized countries" encourage population growth to maintain an ever-growing tax bases and a growing economy, despite the cost in environmental destruction. IMO, a responsible "civilized" government would be encouraging us to have as few kids as possible, knowing that some will have some anyway. As someone pointed out, the definition of "fairness" seems predicated on self-interest rather than some objective definition. So are individuals who are not "families" in of themselves. Hard to know why they should be disadvantaged in tax policy so that families can be advantaged.

Well I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "in similar circumstances". In your very restrictive definition a group of two individuals living together with the same aggerate incomes are considered "in similar circumstances". In the view of the government they are not "in similar circumstances" if there is not the same distribution of income between individuals. Would you consider a "family" of a single parent making $100,000 the same a family of two parents making $100,000? By proposing joint tax returns instead of taxing "family" income is because you have a very narrow view of what is considered a family. Pat, we've had this debate before. I agree with you that the state should be consistent on what the unit of income measurement is, whether individual or family, for both tax and benefit purposes. There are probably many reasons. It may be that in a family where the income is distributed between two individuals they have higher costs to generate income (eg work clothing, transportation, education, etc) If you agree that households with the same income should receive the same benefits and pay the same taxes, are you going to extend that to families which consist of a single individual? If not, why not? Personally I think that such changes introduced for pensioners was not in the name of "fairness" but rather political pandering. So perhaps the right move is to stop income-splitting for seniors unless uniform rules were introduced for the entire taxpaying base.

A flat tax does not address the issue Pat has raised unless you eliminate the base exemption.

What does "fairer" mean and why would families be more entitled to a a "fairer" system than anyone else?

Excactly! It is the couple who should decide without having roles or obligations imposed upon them by society. The couple entered into an arrangement which the woman is now trying to get society to unilaterially change. In this case the couple entered into an arrangement under Quebec common law and the rules are clear: Quebec billionaire's partner launches challenge for alimonyIf the woman wasn't satisified with the financial arrangement, why did she willing enter to the cohbitation? If the woman wasn't aware of the finanical arrangment under cohabitation, should we accept that as an excuse any more than we would accept that a man didn't know the finanical obligations when he enters into a marriage?

IMO, yes the disabled is the problem of the disabled. Where each other person has a vested interest in disablity programs is primarily because each of us can at any time become disabled, so we would support disability programs to the extent that we see ourselves as potential users of such a program. Primarily society should let chips fall where they may. It doesn't "force" anything since participation is voluntary. It is their conscience which force the compassionate not anything else. Actually if you read my response I state that to look at from the objective or reducing crime, there may be alternatives. It may also be a better alternative to increase welfare rates and reduce policing costs. I don't think we know unless we specficly state what the objective is, and measure programs against that objective. I don't really see any difference. If people commit crimes because they are desperate and you pay them off so they are less desperate, how is that anything less than an implicit bribe or payoff? That really depends upon the objectives of the program. If the objective is to increase the wealth of the poor, then certainly giving money to the poor is not a waste. If the objective is to reduce crime but a payment to the poor doesn't do anything to reduce crime, then definitely it is a waste. Not at all. What I am suggesting that you, I and eveyone else keep personal feelings out of public policy. Who I do or do not feel sorry for should be irrelevant to public policy where all taxpayers are diverted. I don't agree that government's role is to redistribute income and force a set of services upon people which they don't agree with by force. IMV the government should only provide services which ONLY government can provide, and the funding for those services shoudl be user-pay. So yes, you don't want healthcare because you're young and healthy, opt out.

It was theimp who suggested that welfare was to mitigate "bad luck". Let's assume that "bad luck" encompasses the scenarios you have described. Why should society bear the onus of mitigating your "bad luck"? If example if you are not very smart isn't that your problem, not societies? Er, Keystone it was YOU who described welfare as insurance in post 96: Post #96 In any case EI is only partially like insurance. It not only covers "bad luck" to the extent the luck impacts your abilty to stay employed. From your description it seems that welfare is a blend of charity and a payoff to those who may otherwise turn to crime. If it is a charity, should charitable giving not be left to individuals to voluntary contribute to the extent their conscience dictates? To the extent that it is a payoff to keep crime low, how do we know that it is the most effective way to spend the funds? For example it may make more sense to decrease welfare rates and spend the funds on police costs or maybe the reverse is true. If it is a payoff, it may make sense to pay higher amounts to those more likely to commit crime (ie young males) rather than women or the elderly. How are the two related. We should fight waste when it occurs. We also need to examine every program including welfare to determine if it is living up to its intended objective. I feel sorry for them as well, nor would I want to trade places with them, but emotion shouldn't cloud rational decisions about what programs are effective and exempt them from being scrutinized.

I suppose it woudl be something like EI if the only "bad luck" you want to mitigate against was lack of employment. Even EI isn't insurance. There is no element of evalation of employment risk, nor is the premium tied to risk. BTW, in some countries EI and Welfare is the same program. So if the reason is to mitigate financial misfortune there is some sense to combine programs. The ablity to say "No thanks....." is exactly what I'd like to see. Currently nobody has a provision to opt out of either Welfare nor EI. In short, while you would like to say "no thanks" to a modified insurance-like sheme for Welfare, I would also like the option to say "no thanks" to that or any other welfare scheme including the current one.

Why should he or anyone else be responsible for hiring them? Each person is an entrepreneur with a product to sell: his labour. It is up to him to make his labour valuable enough so that someone willingly buys it. Even the best run businesses will have high and low times. Businesses as well as individuals need to plan for this and manages their financies accordingly. People going on welfare is the equivalent of a company going bankrupt. It may not always been under their control but it is undeniablly a sign of failure. Of course. That is why if welfare was run as an "insurance" scheme for "bad luch" it would be much fairer to everyone. People should pay for welfare through "insurance premiums" in good times and in an amount proportional to their risk of consuming welfare. People shold be able to opt out of welfare premiums and thus not be eligible for welfare payments.

I don't believe you are correct. In Canada vaccination programs are not mandatory for this very reason. IMO, it is not sufficient for a society to be "reluctant" to override individual rights. The only time it should override individual rights is when it has NO OTHER OPTION. It is simply too low a barrier to state that the state can override individual rights if it is in the "interest of society" since it is the state itself that defines the interest of society. What states "should" do and what they "will" do are separate issues. You acknowledge that a state will act according to what is politicaly feasable. Most times that it to further LOCAL interest. That is simply the point I was making. There is no real point discussing this further in this thread as it is completely tangential to the topic of the thread. If it is it shouldn't be. The state determines the percieved consequence to the individual, the state determines the benefit to society, and the state determines which individual rights to override. It is not at all conssistent with a free society. The state defining its own self-interest as just cause to override individual rights has led to conscription, racism, eugenics and a host of actrocities. Really? What is war? What is capital punshment? It is only your view that the belefs of the surviving family members is unimportant. It is not mine. By your view, we should build houses on sacred burial sites because those who are dead and those who hold the dead sacred are no longer important and should have their rights dismissed in favour of the interest of others. Then why wouldn't a court stop an adult from refusing a blood donation or organ transplantaiton because of religious beliefs? Surely the court knows what is best for the adult. Even if it is "likely" that a child's religious beliefs are the same as the parent, the young age of the child makes them suseptable to brain-washing or undue influence, so a court cannot rely knowing their ultimate religious beliefs and when the consequences are potentially severe such as refusal of a necessary organ transplant, the court must step in. It dare not do so for an adult.

I look at it on an issue by issue basis. I don't consider a "secular socialist" a dangerous enemy. I support a position which is reasonable and in line with the principles of a free society regardless if it is put forth by a Tory or a "secular socialist". At least even a hard-line activist such as you is open to change by reading reasoned opinions. I'm not. I respect that your religion gives you moral guidelines. Just don't impose those guidelines on others.

Well part of the issue is that it is left to the individual judge to decide. While I'm sure in most cases the judge will see the common sense of not overallocating support among multiple fathers, there is nothing in law to prevent a judge from doing so if he chose. The point is that in every other case the child's interrest is impacted by the parents behavoiur. If the parent commits a crime and gets sent to jail the child is affected. If the parent gets civilly sued, and loses, it will affect the child. Because the child is dependant upon the parent they will be affected by the actions and intent of the parent and the courts should be consistent on how they implement that. It seems irrational that only disptes between parents is the interest of the child paramount and rulings oblivious to the behaviour and intent of the paents.

I'm sure that is your opinion that it is more important, it is not mine. I believe the most fundamental principle of agreement of our society is freedom. In order to to be free indiviudal rights must be respected even at the cost of the "welfare of society". Can you describe, under what conditions, in your opinion, "welfare of society" gets to trump individual rights, and who gets to deciide what the "welfare of society" is? Many of our issues would have different policies if we defined "society" from the viewpoint of the world. For example, people on welfare would be considered "rich" in comparison to living standards in some regions. Why bother to fund them instead of the people starving. Whether you choose to belive it or not, most govenments define societal policies based upon a local view on what their societies interests are. If we allowed a state leeway to trump individual rights using the execuse of societal best interest, then it would be easy to justify in some cases the elimination of access to abortion. How exactly do you determine what individual rights can or cannot be trumped by the "common good". You say that "Working for the common good does not include killing people or compromising their quality of life for others". Why not? Is this simply your opinion or is it based on some principle which is not obvious to me on how you determine which individual rights can be infringed and which cannot? Where people have been prevented from denying blood transfusions or organ transplants for their children is not valid to cite. The reason is because it is not clear what the religious beliefs of the child are. Minor children are deemed too young to determine their own religious beliefs and courts are unwilling to conclude that parents religious beliefs are necessarily the same as the childs. If a competent adult's religious beliefs were overrided by forcing a blood tranfusion or organ donation upon them then maybe that woudl be a more valid example.

I'n not following your analogy. If for example you don't pay for welfare (say by getting a reduction on your taxes) and thereby are ineligible for welfare should you need it, how is that like "being able to buy fire insurance after your house burns down, but not contributing otherwise"? How do you distinguish between those who "can not" provide for themselves from those who "will not" provide for themselves? What justification is there to do so? Even if it was justified, who defines what a "dignified life" is?

This site cites a couple of interesting cases with demonstrate a lack of consistency in judicial rulings: PATERNITY FRAUD IN ONTARIO And some interesting stats on how often it occurs: More interesting reading on the issue: Paternity Fraud - Paternity testing